The Houses that Can't be Built in America - The Missing Middle

It's not just density, though that's part of it. A big part is walkability (and otherwise making the city not just car accessible). That can be done without increasing density, by for example, adding wide sidewalks and bike lanes, eliminating maze-like cul-de-sac-heavy street layouts, and decreasing speeds in commercial areas (i.e. enforcing a stronger divide between low speed streets meant for people and high speed roads meant for cars). Another part is mixed-use zoning, where small businesses are intermixed with homes instead of people relying on driving to megastores in shopping centers far from where they live. By decreasing the necessity of the car you decrease the cost of road maintenance and by making places more walkable you make businesses more accessible and therefore more successful. I would suspect that many neighborhoods could be kept at the same density and be significantly rethought in line with the Strong Towns ethos to be more comfortable places to live. Density increases might be necessary in high COL areas because those places are in high demand, but there's plenty of bad city design in places outside uber-expensive metropolitan areas. And there might be strong demand for missing middle[1] housing if only it were legal and frictionless to build it. [1] this video

They are gonna need cars and furniture, yet those are not an investment. Is USA running out of land, or Timber, or unemployed people that could be employed to build a house? We need to get institutional 'investment' out if house flipping and fix zoning. this video

"But there's also the side of people wanting single family homes instead of apartment' Most people who can't afford a home would not reject a decent apartment, they just want somewhere to live. Also those are not the only two choices, there are duplex and triplex homes, illegal in most of us, and other variations this video "Nothing wrong with people in a community wanting to set standards for their area." So in this "democracy" people who don't own a house have no voice and no right? Why does this remind me of some other mechanism for opressing undesirables?

> Personally I think that Americans just don't realize that it's not cities that suck, it's American cities that suck. Plenty of pleasant cities to live in in the world. The YouTube channel "Not just bikes" talks about this. In the USA, it is commonly seen that there are only two possible configurations for human settlements: sprawling suburbs, or Manhattan-style high-density towers. The medium-density style of city common across a lot of Europe and Asia is not very well known in the USA and Canada outside of a select few older cities which developed to a large enough size before the automobile took over. this video

This is a false choice. Limiting limitless consumption is not automatically reduction in the standard of living for most people. There is a huge effect when cutting emissions of the top 10%, even a tiny bit. [1] The graph is likely hiding that if the top 10% was segmented more, it would be very hop heavy - even limiting it to the median of the top 10% should do a lot. The US is also uniquely positioned here to cut their emissions in half and still have more emissions per capacita than Europe[1]. And no, the problem is not that the US is large and cars are required; cars are fine for rural people, but they are not fine for the spawling car-dependent suburban areas US cities keep creating. [2] [1]: link [2]: (video) this video

I can’t claim to have visited all major cities in the US, but they do seem to match the “urban core and suburbs” pattern, compared with my experiences visiting European cities. Not Just Bikes has a video about that: this video

I will grant that Seattle is currently investing in public transit. And that in the next 10-15 years, they have the opportunity to improve that situation greatly (providing people good/consistent transit to downtown). There's a lot of the missing middle in Seattle for housing: this video Which has been demonstrated to pay for itself (and support other businesses). Zoning for this would go a long way towards helping to alleviate the increasing cost of housing. (Also actively/readily) makes more money than it costs to maintain. I think there's also something to be said for getting rid of cars in Downtown Seattle (still need to provide good accessible options). I originally clicked on this article in hopes that was what people were doing. Tangent: Shuffling homeless people around with cement "eco" blocks (legitimately interested in the etymology of that name) turned out to be the sad waste of resources we were going for here... Mental Health feels a lot more difficult than this. Probably needs more of a national fix cause healthcare is too expensive and inaccessible in the US.

Many of those codes have been designed to protect incombents from competition and various other forms of encouraging one form of living (car dependent) over others. Plenty of people in Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, etc live happy lives in much much smaller living areas. This makes them more affordable. But building codes in many places in the USA disallow making places that small. Other examples of questionable codes are codes that require parking spaces, codes that require front yards, codes that require backyards, etc.... this video link

AirBnB sux but zoning has arguably been a net negative on most societies in many ways link this video for me what I noticed lately is that in California it's impossible to have a quiet modern apartment because nearly 100% of modern apartment buildings are only allowed to be built on busy noisy high traffic streets. If you want a quiet street you're forced to buy/rent a house